Rating: 
Summary: Great Historical drama
Review: This is actually an interesting film and the DVD contains as an extra a documentary on the Cuban Missile Crisis. It is now some time since the Cuban Missile Crisis so that probably most people have forgotten what it was about. In the early 1960's the United States had a relatively week army but an immense strength in nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union had a limited number of long range nuclear weapons but an immensely strong army. It was generally conceded by the US military that it could conquer Western Europe in 48 hours. The military balance was based on the threat of the US using nuclear weapons if the peace of Western Europe was threatened. In 1961 the United States sponsored an invasion of Cuba by some dissident exiles. This expedition failed. The Soviet Union started to build up Cuba's defences to prevent another invasion. At the same time short range ballistic missiles with nuclear weapons were put on the island which brought most US cities into target range. It was the discovery of these weapons that led to the missile crisis. The film covers the 13 days of the crisis and thus the name. The difficulty was what to do. Kennedy's military advisors suggested a military strike to destroy the missiles and then a follow up invasion of Cuba. The basis of this was a belief that the US nuclear superiority would guarantee that the Soviets would not retaliate. Kennedy however was concerned that this might not happen. He was familiar with the history of the First World War. In that conflict a series of "correct" military decisions had led to a senseless mass horror. If the US invaded Cuba it would be easy for the Soviets to seize Berlin. Could the US then use nuclear weapons? One would think not. As a result Kennedy set up a broad-based set of advisors who came up with the strategy of a blockade. However each of the 13 days of the crisis set up challenges which might have at any time led to a conflict. If spy planes were shot down, should the US retaliate? If the US fired at Russian transport ships bringing in weapons would escorting submarines retaliate? The Cuban missile crisis was the high point of Kennedy's presidency when he made objectively the correct decision against military advice. It later turned out that the local Soviet Commanders had short range nuclear weapons and were authorised to use them if an invasion had occurred. An invasion could have been catastrophic. The film accurately describes the time and all of the actors are excellent. The film also does not try to play the audience for idiots and the dramatic pacing is good. One of the best historical films in years. Incidentally the DVD contains an excellent documentary on the crisis. Many documentaries are static and rely on visual imagery. This is a good punchy talking heads documentary which conveys information quickly and accurately. A great package.
Rating: 
Summary: 4 1/2 stars...great story regardless of historical accuracy
Review: An excellent and interesting take on the Crisis as seen through the eyes of Ken O'Donnell the Kennedy "chief-of-Staff". Many argue the historical accuracy of this film (with the release of the book "The Kennedy Tapes", we know that O'Donnell wasn't this involved...at least not in the recorded meetings anyway...), but I was struck with this movie's portrayal of the urgency of those times. Few accounts of the Crisis (written or documentary) portray the feelings and context of how close we came to actual Nuclear Warfare (we now know all about the tactical Nuclear weapons the the Soviets had on the island and their intended use if the US invaded), but this movie's selling point is the emotion and "steely resolve" of the Kennedy's and EXCOMM as well as extraordinary visuals (just being able to see re-creations of the U2 flights and the low-level surveillance sorties are enough to almost take the breath away from those of us who've spent much time reading and studying this event). Granted, the portrayed managing of the Crisis takes on some cinematic liberties, but I think that it's reasonably close and the visual/emotional effects more than offset the historical inaccuracies (I don't believe the filmakers meant to make this a documentary...). This is certainly a useful movie for the historian and an excellently exciting film for the general viewer. High recommendation.
Rating:
Summary: Another Great Docu-Drama about Real Cold War History
Review: I'm totally flabbergasted and confused: the editorial review opens by saying the film "takes liberty" with history -- and history seems to repeat itself with the same pheonomenon that plagued Stone's landmark film, "JFK". Read between the lines. The critics say the film "enhances" the role of Presidential aide, Kenny O'Donnell. Costner had a great teacher in Stone, and the team that created the film poured over the declassified document releases of the previous decade. It is no less valid as cinematic historical dramatization because O'Donnell's hundred hours of taped interviews from the 1960s were a key ingredient in the film's background research -- provided to the director by O'Donnell's son. Where do we get our understanding of history? From the people who lived it, folks! Obviously the film's accuracy will only be slightly skewed because of the chosen perspective, and viewers will not be misled if they understand the material. That should be obvious from the credits at the end of "Thirteen Days". The only other "liberty" taken by Costner with this film? The bullet holes in the reconnaissance plane used to verify the U-2 findings of Russian missiles. The real pilot of that flight was later interviewed in a cable-TV documentary on the actual Missile Crisis, and remarked that although no Cuban bullets hit the plane, "We came pretty darn close!" Given the nature of other facts in post-war history that have been kept from the public, it was quite possible that the pilot was still honoring the agreement he made with the real Kenny O'Donnell, but the issue of the bullet-holes is insignificant chaff. I give "two thumbs up" to this film for its ground-breaking historical presentation. I offer a more modest four stars only because the music score of the sound-track falls noticeably short of other films in the same genre, such as Stone's "JFK", and much earlier docu-drama works such as "MacArthur" starring Gregory Peck. Costner is an exceptionally talented actor and director with a penetrating, independent mind. I still wax quizzical at a recorded poem on one of his web sites, in which he remarks emphatically -- "I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone!" That opinion may have changed, but has little bearing on "Thirteen Days" -- rich in both its accuracy and its dramatic presentation. Costner should have many productive years ahead, developing his talents as a director beyond his acting ability. We'll keep an eye open for more of his contributions.
Rating:
Summary: moviefan
Review: This is a very good movie that i think portrays the mess that the Kennedy administration was stuck in during the Cuban missile crisis. This movie has been frequently criticised for not being very historically accurate. I don't agree, the only example of this being historically inacurate I have ever heard was that they gave Kenny O'Donnel (Kevin Costner) an inflated role. But we don't know exactly how big a role O'Donnel had. We don't know what went on in private staff meetings, maybe he had as big a role as was portrayed, or maybe he didn't. We don't know, but what was accomplished by O'Donnel being portrayed as being so close to Kennedy on decision making was that it provided a great median for telling the story of the Cuban Missile crisis
Rating:
Summary: I love well written and acted historical pieces
Review: This is a DVD I think should go in any history buffs library. It makes me want to READ about the event. That is what a good historical movie should do. It is about the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Since I was born in that year, of course I have no personal knowledge of the events. However, I was amazed by my lack of knowledge of details of the events that went on during that 2 week period. They are as fascinating today as they were then. This is history we (and I don't mean Americans, but everyone existing on this planet) all should know. Because as the saying goes, 'those that do not know their history will be doomed to repeat it'.
Rating: 
Summary: Reply
Review: (...) I say if more tolerant critics said this was one of the year's best films, they tolerated one heck of a lot. (...) I bought it for historical perspective. However, I should've rented it.
Rating:
Summary: Thirteen Days
Review: We don,t how close we came to a war with the cuba and russia if we did not act fast we would be at war the movie is very well done and part of it was rioght here where i live Newport RI the actual destroyer Joseph P Kendedy was used and the the were students from Mass Maritime acadamy every thing about the event of the cuban missle cris is factual the red phone in the house
the ships it is worth the money
Rating:
Summary: a major political thriller
Review: based on the cuban missile crisis of 1962 this film is gripping. it is one of the best of 2000. kevin costner and bruce greenwood are terriffic. a huge piece of history rolled into a well made cleverfully made thriller. it ranks right up there with some of the greatest political films of all time like the american president. one film you can't miss.
Rating:
Summary: Worth watching
Review: Attempting to capture history on the silver screen is always a tricky proposition, especially when you have figures as notable as the Kennedy Brothers at the center. It is somehwhat surprising how deeply feelings about these two go, even today and their presense alone can often distract from the proceedings as many viewers will no doubt engage in the is he "doing" a good Kennedy question. Such issues aside the film is accused of being too slanted or historically inaccurate. The claim does have some merit, in that Costner's character is elevated to a status he may not have had and the Vice-President is nowhere to be seen. What must be noted in the film's defense is that the majority of the dialogue and interactions are based or transcribed directly from the 100+ hours of recently de-clasified audio-recordings made during the proceedings at the White House durring the events portrayed and from interviews and memoirs from the key players. At the very least the film tries to create as much truth as it can, using actual materials where it can (The Photographs of the misele sites are the actual photopgraphs). If it bends slightly too much in it's slant in the name of drama, it can usually be forgiven because the overall goal, to illustrate the dangers of an un-checked arms race, is one that is important. Much has been made of the technical "goofs" in the film, and yes there are some, Boom-mikes can aparrently be seen periodically, Costner's accent may be too forced and distracting for some and the directorial strategy of mixing B&W, color, archive, and dramatic footage lacks some of the oomph of Oliver Stone's work in a similar vein, even if the script refrains from much of his excess. However, the fact remains that the film does more right than wrong. Screenwriter Self makes this material into a tight script that takes its primary dialogues from the real transcripts, and never really looses its focus. The performances and direction mostly give the material the the severity and weight it needs and Director Donaldson makes the majority of the points he tries to fairly cleanly. The Bonuses on this disc make it shine however, there is a wealth of material on the characters and events which populate the story and while not encyclopedic the infinifilm features do a solid job of providing a basic introduction to the events and players. This material is no substitute for actually reading about the events, but its neither designed to be a course on the subject nor can it be expected to be so. Technically the Disc is quite nice, the interface is only slightly complex, but new line has provided robust help options, and the film itself is crisp and clean. The audio is rarely "reference" level but that is entirely appropiate in keeping with the tone of the film and the nature of the proceedings: Keep in mind this is not a combat film, the war opn screen here is of nerves and wills, flashy acoustics would only distract. Politics is dry stuff and even if the film's flaws are unforgivable (Which I dont feel) the importance of politics and of inteligent inteligent leadership is stressed here in ways not often seen on film. For that alone the film has a significant space in my collection.
Rating:
Summary: Thirteen Days of tension and fear...
Review: Thirteen days. Thirteen days in October 1962 when the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics stood "eyeball-to-eyeball" in a confrontation that brought the world to the very edge of nuclear war. The "Cuban Missile Crisis," as history has dubbed this autumnal fortnight, was perhaps the closest humanity has ever come to nuclear annihilation. In the year 2000 - thirty-eight years after humanity's "near death experience" - came a movie that attempts to re-create the tension and fear of the Cuban Missile Crisis. "Thirteen Days," starring Kevin Costner, Bruce Greenwood, Steven Culp, and Dylan Baker, is a well acted, directed, written historical drama that largely succeeds in bringing to life one of the great political crises of the twentieth century. "Thirteen Days" is a very well written film that largely succeeds in conveying the sense of urgency and palpable tension that existed within the Kennedy administration during these dark days. The film certainly has an air of historical authenticity about it. Screen writer David Self based much of his material on a book entitled "The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis," by Ernest R. May and Philip D. Zelikow. This book contains transcripts of secretly taped conversations that occurred inside the Oval Office and Cabinet Room during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It's clearly apparent that many of the scenes in "Thirteen Days" are faithful reproductions of those taped conversations. Most of the historical events shown in the film - the discovery of the missiles; the decision to impose a naval blockade; the intense efforts to reach a diplomatic solution to the crisis are well documented in history. So, it's safe to say that "Thirteen Days" is a reasonably faithful distillation of what actually happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The film may be historically accurate, but how historically objective is it? How well do the filmmakers resist the temptation to put a particular political "spin" on the events depicted in "Thirteen Days?" Here, I think, the film does not fare quite so well. It's hampered at the outset by virtue of the fact that the entire story is seen through the eyes of President Kennedy's closest political advisor and friend, Kenny O'Donnell (played by Kevin Costner). It's well known that O'Donnell, who died in 1977, practically "hero-worshipped" Kennedy, so it's doubtful that anything he left behind, in the form of speeches, memoirs, or other communications, would have been particularly objective in nature. There's no mistaking the filmmakers' attempt to paint the nation's senior military leadership as nothing but a bunch of conniving warmongers, however. Generals Taylor and LeMay, and Admiral Anderson, are all painted as virulent opponents of President Kennedy, and conspirators in an overt plot to start a war they desperately want. From what I've read of history, the senior military leaders during the Kennedy administration were extremely competent and always acted in a highly professional manner. So, the film's subtle efforts to portray all military people as connivers and conspirators are inexcusable. The film's portrayal of John and Robert Kennedy is more sympathetic... and, oddly, more balanced. We see the Kennedys' strengths and weaknesses in equal measure. President Kennedy is seen as a man genuinely desirous of peace, desperately searching for a way to avoid Armageddon. Yet, confronted with a series of life-and-death decisions, he seems at times almost paralyzed by indecisiveness. Robert Kennedy, Attorney General of the United States, comes off as idealistic, loyal, smart, competent... and at the same time ruthless, and willing to compromise his ethics for political advantage. The acting is, for the most part, pretty good. Bruce Greenwood and Steven Culp give masterful portrayals of the brothers John and Robert Kennedy respectively. Dylan Baker is excellent as the precise, almost robotic Defense Secretary Robert McNamara; as are Michael Fairman as Adlai Stevenson; Kevin Conway as General Curtis ("bomb 'em back to the Stone Age") LeMay; and Bill Smitrovich as General Maxwell Taylor. Kevin Costner's performance as Kenny O'Donnell is the one major disappointment in this film. His acting problems begin with an absolutely ludicrous Boston "accent," but they don't end there. He imbues his character with the same stiffness, colorlessness, and lifelessness that's typical of all his work. He consistently sounds like he's reading or reciting his lines, not speaking them naturally. Despite Costner's poor performance and some questions concerning the film's historical objectivity, "Thirteen Days" remains a very good film. It successfully captures the tension and fear that pervaded not only the government, but society as a whole. It opens a window on the tough decision-making required from men untested in the crucible of history. And, it's just plain good old fashioned entertainment to boot.
| 
